Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise , J And K vs. Hardcastle Petrofer PVT. LTD.
Held
The Court allowed the application to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. Regarding the appeal itself, the Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted to hearing. In the interim, the Court directed that subject to the appellant releasing 50% of the amount due in terms of the impugned CESTAT judgment, to the respondent entrepreneur upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Commissioner within four weeks of furnishing such surety, the payment of the balance amount shall remain stayed. The appeal is to be listed along with CEA 09/2018. The Court did not decide on the admission of the appeal on merits at this stage.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, J&K, Jammu (appellant) filed an appeal against an order dated March 23, 2018, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appeal pertains to multiple appeal numbers before the CESTAT, concerning the period prior to the introduction of GST. The appellant sought to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the impugned order. The appellant also relied on an earlier order of the High Court in CEA No. 09/2018, where notice was issued and interim directions were granted. The respondent is Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but relates to the subject matter of the CESTAT appeals.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be admitted to hearing, considering the reliance placed on an earlier order of this Court in CEA No. 09/2018. Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellant relies on the fact that in a similar earlier appeal (CEA No. 09/2018), notice was issued to show cause as to why the appeal should not be admitted, and interim directions were also granted. This suggests a prima facie case for admission. Respondent's Arguments: No arguments are recorded for the respondent in this excerpt.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________________________________________________________________________________ MCC No. 287/2018 Regular list Item No.19 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
MCC No. 287/2018 c/w CEA No. 34/2018, IA No. 01/2018
Date of order: 26.11.2018 Commissioner of Central GST and Central; Excise, J&K, Jammu Vs. Hardcastle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE Appearing counsel(s): For Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate For Respondent (s) :
MCC NO. 287/2018
For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Accordingly, filing of the certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with. CEA No. 34/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on an earlier order passed by this Court in CEA No. 09/2018, in which notice has been iss
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.